CLT UPDATE
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
They get what we pay for, endlessly
As the state looks to slash local aid,
state lawmakers are set to receive a 5.5 percent pay hike that will
boost their pay by more than $3,000 a year.
Under a state law approved by voters in 1998, lawmakers’ pay rises or
falls every two years in sync with the state’s median household income.
Associated Press
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Lawmakers in line for pay hike amid chao$
The 5.5 percent pay hike will boost elected officials' base
pay from $58,237 to $61,440 - an increase of just more than $3,200 a year. Many
lawmakers make more than the base pay with some heads of committees making an
additional $7,500 or $15,000....
Critics said few workers in Massachusetts have guaranteed pay hikes written into
law.
But they also said that the voters who approved the ballot question in 1998 and
may be upset with the pay hikes now, have no one to blame but themselves.
"Voters did a very, very foolish thing and they are going to have to pay for it
literally," said Barbara Anderson of the anti-tax group Citizens for
Limited Taxation. "When they are worrying about where their next paycheck is
coming from, their lawmakers are going to be enjoying a pay raise."
The Lynn Daily Item
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Locals: Legislators sending wrong message
if they accept pay increases
A 2007 law further tied the salaries of the governor and the
other five constitutional officers to the legislative salaries making Gov. Deval
L. Patrick and Lt. Gov. Tim Murray eligible for the raise. Both Patrick, who
earns $140,535, and Murray plan to reject the pay increase, according to
spokeswoman Cyndi Roy.
The overall cost to the state if all 200 legislators accepted the raise would
total $640,600.
The Berkshire Eagle
Friday, January 9, 2009
Lawmakers wary of automatic raise
Back in 1998, voters authorized automatic pay increases for
legislators based on increases in the state's median household income for the
preceding two-year period. The measure was approved by better than 60 percent of
the voters statewide (58.79 percent in Essex County), and thus freed lawmakers
from the messy task of having to vote on their own pay raises.
Of course, the summary of the proposal was somewhat deceptive, starting off
with: "This proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit the state
Legislature from changing the base compensation received by members of the
Legislature ..." before noting that such compensation would "be increased or
decreased at the same rate as increases or decreases in the median household
income ..."
(Interestingly, while embracing the automatic pay raise, legislators had no
problem ignoring the voters' will on the Clean Elections Law, which passed by a
similar margin that same year.)
There's no way those on Beacon Hill would have voted themselves a 5.5 percent
raise this year.
Thanks to us, they didn't have to.
A Salem News editorial
Saturday, January 10, 2008
Be careful what you vote for
Jon Keller @ Large
Stooges of the Week
State
Legislators and Voters
It might have seemed the height of audacity when J. James
Marzilli Jr., charged with attempting to grope a woman, asked the state to
nearly double his pension, just 11 days after he resigned from the state Senate
in disgrace.
In fact, he was following a well-trod Beacon Hill tradition of cashing in on a
law that allows veteran state legislators who retire or fail to win reelection
to receive staggering pension increases worth thousands of dollars a year.
A Globe review shows that 14 former legislators are currently drawing
significantly increased pensions under the law, including several who left amid
their own ethical and criminal troubles.
The law, originally created to compensate civil servants who lost jobs when new
administrations took over, was expanded by the Legislature 59 years ago to
provide the same benefits to lawmakers - even though their employment depends on
voters, not the political whims that can threaten civil servants. Now, as the
state faces a deep financial crisis and is taking painful steps including
layoffs, the generous benefit for departing legislators is sparking outrage.
"It's ridiculous," said L. Scott Harshbarger, the former attorney general of
Massachusetts and onetime president of Common Cause, a government watchdog
group. "How in the world is it appropriate, necessary, or consistent with any
reasonable public policy that if you chose not to run for office or are defeated
in running for office that you get an enhanced pension? It just seems to me
totally unreasonable, and for elected officials this does not enhance their
image."...
Indeed, efforts to repeal special pension benefits have been traditionally met
with fierce resistance on Beacon Hill, said state Representative Harriett L.
Stanley, a West Newbury Democrat and longtime critic of such benefits.
"We're talking about the third rail here," she said. "It's going to be
absolutely impossible to make meaningful reform unless we acknowledge the
problem, and that will be one tough battle."The law, as it was amended in 1950,
allows any elected official under age 55 "who has completed twenty or more years
of creditable service and who fails of nomination or reelection" to apply for a
pension increase.
Using a formula based on the lawmaker's age, years of service, and annuity, the
law can boost a pension by as much 400 percent. Pension officials say the
requests are almost always granted unless the lawmaker was convicted of a crime.
No wonder, some say, that lawmakers created the statute.
"If you're going to stick a little juicy one in there for yourself, why not put
one in there if you can't get reelected?" said Nicholas Poser, a Boston pension
lawyer. "The 'failed of nomination' stuff is, to my mind, clearly directed at
failed politicians." ...
The Boston Globe
Sunday, January 11, 2008
Pay as they go
Law that lets retired lawmakers
boost their pensions sparks outrage
Turns out more than a dozen of these clowns are putting the
arm on taxpayers, taking advantage of a legal form of larceny in which
legislators are allowed to quadruple their pensions if they get voted out of
office, or bail out because a grand jury is sniffing around.
Is this a great state, or what? ...
And who can blame them? They are being paid full-time wages for part-time work,
and they give themselves raises and pension boosts and no one says boo. They
work for suckers.
Us.
The Boston Globe
Monday, January 12, 2008
State House swindlers
By Kevin Cullen
Ah, but there is not a single word in that pay raise law
approved by voters back in 1998 that says lawmakers are required to accept an
increase.
So we have four words for the 200 newly sworn members of the House and Senate:
“Thanks, but no thanks!”
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, January 12, 2008
It’s a no-brainer
Taxpayers are on the hook for $1.6 million to pay for a
two-decade-old state Treasury goof that let Beacon Hill lawmakers avoid a 2.9
percent Medicare deduction from their paychecks, according to documents obtained
by the Herald....
The state must pay $1.6 million for both its own and the 208 employees’
contributions from 2005 to 2008 as part of a deal worked out with the IRS,
according to the document.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Withholding snafu pins bill on State
Days after lawmakers got a controversial 5.5 percent pay
hike, a governor’s councilor blasted them for keeping a “back pocket” raise
thanks to a decades-old state treasury slipup.
The state treasurer’s office failed to withhold 2.9 percent in Medicare tax from
lawmakers’ paychecks since 1986, officials recently discovered. Taxpayers now
have to cough up $1.6 million to rectify the goof.
“This is basically another raise they’ve been taking for the last 20 years,”
said Governor’s Councilor Mary-Ellen Manning, who said she’d pay back her
portion of the mistake, or about $1,450.
“They’re all standing up and saying they’re not going to take it, but here
they’ve had this in their back pocket,” Manning said....
Under a deal hammered out with the IRS, taxpayers will pay $1.6 million for the
missing deductions from 2005 to 2008. Manning said the missed deductions amount
to extra cash in lawmaker’s pockets in the end - and taxpayers wind up footing
the bill.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Local pols who keep $1.6M tax ‘raise’ blasted
'It's ridiculous," says L. Scott Harshbarger, the
former attorney general of Massachusetts and onetime president of Common
Cause. "How in the world is it appropriate, necessary, or consistent
with any reasonable public policy that if you chose not to run for
office or are defeated in running for office that you get an enhanced
pension?"
Indeed, the Massachusetts law that allows legislators to increase their
pension if they lose an election - and to begin collecting on it on the
day they leave office - isn't just inappropriate. It's enraging. And it
should be repealed.
A Boston Globe editorial
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Pension sweeteners turn sour
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
"You get what you pay for,"
is a common axiom. In the People's Republic of Taxachusetts our
motto should be "They get what we pay for, endlessly," By They
of course I refer to our elected "public servants" in the state
Legislature. Rather than Them working for the people who
elected them as in most states, here we the people work for Them.
And we're working harder and harder to pay taxes and the increases
They're proposing.
When the economy tanks like
it has, we and our neighbors cut back to survive, but They
continue to prosper and then some. They are the only human
beings in the history of the world to get automatic
constitutionally-mandated pay raises, but that is still not
enough. They are one of the highest paid state legislatures in the
nation. Nope, still not enough. Unlike us, They
collect an additional per diem pay just for traveling back to forth to
jobs They lust for? Still not enough. An additional
$600 per month for office expenses? Still not enough.
A major federal income tax exemption if They live beyond 50 miles
from the State House? Still not enough. "Campaign"
funds to finance Their cars and buy Their gas?
Sorry, still not enough -- They keep grabbing for more,
always more. But More Is Never Enough (MINE). Not as
long as we still have something in our pockets They can take, and
put in Theirs.
Turn down the automatic pay
raise? Your joking, right? Some have pledged to "give it to
charity," like it's coming out of their pockets not ours. Giving
it to charity is tax deductible. It's a good ploy come reelection
time. And it still pads Their base pay for future pension
benefits.
Now we learn that despite
all of those entitlements, They can collect double those
pensions if They retire due to poor health -- the voters got sick
of them and elected somebody else. And They can start
collecting that doubled pension immediately after being rejected by
their constituents, tossed out of office.
Repeal this theft?
Not in Massachusetts.
As if that isn't bad
enough, we also just learned that, unlike us mere serfs who labor in
Their fields, They haven't been paying Their federal
Medicare tax for years. If you or I failed to comply, the IRS
would come after us with a posse. Before we knew what hit us our
wages would be garnished, there'd be a lien on our bank accounts, and
penalties along with interest would start piling up. Not Them,
no sirree. They cut a deal with the IRS, just added it onto
the tab we sucker taxpayers will now pay, reimbursement for Them.
Pay back the tax arrears
like commoners in the same circumstance would need to do? Who,
Them?
Will enough voters ever
wake up and end this ridiculous, embarrassing gravy train? I'm
tired of getting the government that witless majority deserves.
This bizarre form of government for which we exist -- of, by, and for
the politicians -- has got to end. If citizens wait for
Them to "reform" this dysfunctional Massachusetts political culture
they'd better not be holding their collective breath. The Best
Legislature Money Can Buy will never, ever "reform" a thing that
benefits Them, or diminishes the "divine rights" to which
They've become accustomed. It's simply not going to happen.
They don't need to. Not so long as they feel invulnerable to
threats, immune from election defeat, unaccountable to their
constituents.
They're sitting fat
and sassy still.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
Associated Press
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Lawmakers in line for pay hike amid chao$
As the state looks to slash local aid, state
lawmakers are set to receive a 5.5 percent pay hike that will boost
their pay by more than $3,000 a year.
Under a state law approved by voters in 1998,
lawmakers’ pay rises or falls every two years in sync with the state’s
median household income.
The law requires the governor to determine the change to the household
income at the start of each two-year legislative session.
The increase would lift lawmakers’ base pay from $58,237 to $61,440.
Many lawmakers make more than the base pay with some heads of committees
making an additional $7,500 or $15,000.
Patrick sent a letter to state Treasurer Timothy Cahill late yesterday
saying he’d determined the increase to be 5.5 percent.
Cyndi Roy, a spokeswoman for the Executive Office of Administration and
Finance, said that in the past some lawmakers have gone without the
raise or donated it to charity.
She said legislators received pay raises of 8 percent in 2001, 6.5
percent in 2003, 4.1 percent in 2005, and 4.8 percent in 2007.
The timing is politically awkward as the state grapples with tumbling
revenues and lawmakers face the prospect of slashing spending.
Yesterday, Patrick asked lawmakers for expanded budget-cutting powers
after projecting just last week that the state’s revenues for the
current fiscal year that ends June 30 will fall by another $1 billion.
One of the biggest items on the chopping block is local aid to cities
and town.
The Lynn Daily Item
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Locals: Legislators sending wrong message
if they accept pay increases
By Thor Jourgensen
State legislators are sending the wrong message by taking a pay raise at
a time when others are feeling the financial squeeze, said Mike Buksa, a
financial service worker who has seen seven friends laid off from their
jobs in the last month.
The 5.5 percent pay hike will boost elected officials' base pay from
$58,237 to $61,440 - an increase of just more than $3,200 a year. Many
lawmakers make more than the base pay with some heads of committees
making an additional $7,500 or $15,000.
State Rep. Joyce Spiliotis agreed with Buksa but not enough to forgo
what she estimated amounts to a $2,800 raise. Instead, the Peabody
legislator is donating the money to several charities, including Haven
for Hunger. She also said she will spend the money on savings bonds for
distribution this spring to high school graduates.
State Rep. Lori Ehrlich, D-Marblehead, plans to do the same with her
raise, stating she wants to "put it to work" in her district where the
money can help feed, educate and care for constituents who need help.
Other Lynn area legislators including state Sen. Thomas M. McGee and
Reps. Robert Fennell, Steven Walsh, Mark Falzone, Kathi Anne Reinstein
and Robert DeLeo could not be reached for comment on the raise.
Under a state law approved by voters in 1998, lawmakers' pay rises or
falls every two years in sync with the state's median household income.
The law requires the governor to determine the change to the household
income at the start of each two-year legislative session.
Kandice Wampler works for the state and received a pay raise in July
tied to the anniversary date of her employment. She is concerned that
layoffs, not pay hikes, could be the fate awaiting many of her
colleagues this year.
On Wednesday, Gov. Deval Patrick asked lawmakers for expanded
budget-cutting powers after projecting just last week that the state's
revenues for the current fiscal year which ends June 30 will fall by
another $1 billion. One of the biggest items on the chopping block is
local aid to cities and town.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Senate President Therese Murray, both
elected to new terms as heads of the legislative chambers, also warned
Wednesday about dire fiscal times ahead. Demetrio Carrion thinks raises
make sense in tough economic times because they give people the added
spending power needed to stimulate the economy.
The ballot question setting the stage for legislative raises was
intended to take the politics out of legislative pay raises by tying
them to the fate of household income - and taking the decision out of
the hands of lawmakers themselves.
David Falcone, a spokesman for Murray, said there's no guarantee
lawmakers' salaries will always go up at the start of each session.
"If the median household income had decreased, there could in fact have
been a pay cut instead of a raise," Falcone said, adding that the
decision whether to accept the pay hike is up to each member.
Critics said few workers in Massachusetts have guaranteed pay hikes
written into law.
But they also said that the voters who approved the ballot question in
1998 and may be upset with the pay hikes now, have no one to blame but
themselves.
"Voters did a very, very foolish thing and they are going to have to pay
for it literally," said Barbara Anderson of the anti-tax group
Citizens for Limited Taxation. "When they are worrying about where
their next paycheck is coming from, their lawmakers are going to be
enjoying a pay raise."
Associated Press material was used in this report.
The Berkshire Eagle
Friday, January 9, 2009
Lawmakers wary of automatic raise
By Matt Murphy, Eagle Boston Bureau
State lawmakers have been put on the spot just one day after being sworn
into the Legislature, forced to decide whether to accept an automatic
5.5 percent pay raise as workers across the state are losing their jobs
and seeing their own salaries frozen.
The constitutionally mandated salary hike would increase the base pay
for state representatives and senators from $58,237 per year to $61,440,
an increase of $3,203. Many also receive stipends of $7,500 or $15,000
for holding leadership positions in both branches or serving as
committee chairmen.
Legislators from the Berkshires were divided yesterday on how they
planned to address the issue of the raise with one saying he would
reject it, others unsure if they should keep it, reject it or donate it
to charity as many of their colleagues were considering.
A 2007 law further tied the salaries of the governor and the other five
constitutional officers to the legislative salaries making Gov. Deval L.
Patrick and Lt. Gov. Tim Murray eligible for the raise. Both Patrick,
who earns $140,535, and Murray plan to reject the pay increase,
according to spokeswoman Cyndi Roy.
The overall cost to the state if all 200 legislators accepted the raise
would total $640,600.
"I'm not going to accept it," said Sen. Benjamin Downing, D-Pittsfield.
"The economic climate, both in my district and in the commonwealth, is
tough with many workers getting laid off. I just don't think it's right
to accept a raise at this point."
Rep. Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams, said he was still undecided. In
the past the veteran Democrat has come down on both sides of the issue,
rejecting the raise some years and accepting it in others. He turned
down a 4.8 percent pay increase in 2007.
"I just don't know yet," he said Thursday. "It's a hard decision for any
one of us to make. We have responsibilities to our consituents and we
have responsibilties to our families."
While acknowledging that the issue of the raise is politically
sensitive, Bosley pointed out that Massachusetts lawmakers are paid less
than many other full-time Legislatures, including in the neighboring
state of New York.
He said the decision was symbolic in many respects, but not a
budget-buster for the state. Reps. Christopher N. Speranzo,
D-Pittsfield, and Denis E. Guyer, D-Dalton, did not respond for comment.
Voters approved an amendment in 1998 that attempted to take the politics
out of Legislative pay raises by tying any increase to the median
household income. Every two years, Legislative salaries are now
automatically adjusted up or down based on what happened to that
statewide median income over the previous two years.
In January 2007, legislators received a 4.8 percent increase. Two years
before that, the bump was 4.1 percent.
"Voters did a very, very foolish thing and they are going to have to pay
for it, literally," said Barbara Anderson of the anti-tax group Citizens
for Limited Taxation.
Rep. William "Smitty" Pignatelli, D-Lenox, said he was still weighing
his options. He rejected a raise his first year in the House during the
financial crisis in 2003, but has since accepted the salary increases.
But as Patrick and the Legislature prepare to make even deeper cuts in
the state budget this month to deal with a worsening economy, many
lawmakers were questioning whether it would be prudent to accept the
raise.
Some said it would be better to give the money to local charities rather
than put it back in the general fund where a lawmakers can't be sure it
will be spent to benefit their district.
"I've decided to give it to charity because I think charitable
organization are hurting as much as anyone and I'd like to help them,"
said Rep. Jennifer Benson, D-Lunenburg.
Rep. Cory Atkins, D-Concord, plans to donate the raise to organizations
or funds set up by the communities she represents that will benefit her
constituents.
"I want to be as generous as I can with my community organizations," he
said.
The Salem News
Saturday, January 10, 2008
A Salem News editorial
Be careful what you vote for
Massachusetts legislators are due for a 5.5 percent pay increase at a
time when many of their constituents have suffered cuts in income and
benefits — if they're lucky enough to have a job at all.
The timing couldn't be worse. News of the latest pay raise came as the
state announced the number of unemployed had doubled from the same time
last year and the Patrick administration confirmed that the Department
of Mental Health would have to lay off about a quarter of its case
workers due to budget cuts.
Some have said they will refuse the raise or donate the extra $3,203
they are due to receive to charity.
"Now is not the time to keep this raise," House Minority Leader Bradley
Jones, R-North Reading, said in a statement. "We are facing the worst
economy we've seen in decades and I would not be comfortable at this
time putting that money in my pocket, while so many people are
struggling to make ends meet."
But House Speaker Salvator DiMasi says he has no problem accepting it,
noting that it's what the people wanted. And he's right.
Back in 1998, voters authorized automatic pay increases for legislators
based on increases in the state's median household income for the
preceding two-year period. The measure was approved by better than 60
percent of the voters statewide (58.79 percent in Essex County), and
thus freed lawmakers from the messy task of having to vote on their own
pay raises.
Of course, the summary of the proposal was somewhat deceptive, starting
off with: "This proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit the
state Legislature from changing the base compensation received by
members of the Legislature ..." before noting that such compensation
would "be increased or decreased at the same rate as increases or
decreases in the median household income ..."
(Interestingly, while embracing the automatic pay raise, legislators had
no problem ignoring the voters' will on the Clean Elections Law, which
passed by a similar margin that same year.)
There's no way those on Beacon Hill would have voted themselves a 5.5
percent raise this year.
Thanks to us, they didn't have to.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, January 11, 2008
Pay as they go
Law that lets retired lawmakers
boost their pensions sparks outrage
By Michael Levenson
It might have seemed the height of audacity when J. James Marzilli Jr.,
charged with attempting to grope a woman, asked the state to nearly
double his pension, just 11 days after he resigned from the state Senate
in disgrace.
In fact, he was following a well-trod Beacon Hill tradition of cashing
in on a law that allows veteran state legislators who retire or fail to
win reelection to receive staggering pension increases worth thousands
of dollars a year.
A Globe review shows that 14 former legislators are currently drawing
significantly increased pensions under the law, including several who
left amid their own ethical and criminal troubles.
The law, originally created to compensate civil servants who lost jobs
when new administrations took over, was expanded by the Legislature 59
years ago to provide the same benefits to lawmakers - even though their
employment depends on voters, not the political whims that can threaten
civil servants. Now, as the state faces a deep financial crisis and is
taking painful steps including layoffs, the generous benefit for
departing legislators is sparking outrage.
"It's ridiculous," said L. Scott Harshbarger, the former attorney
general of Massachusetts and onetime president of Common Cause, a
government watchdog group. "How in the world is it appropriate,
necessary, or consistent with any reasonable public policy that if you
chose not to run for office or are defeated in running for office that
you get an enhanced pension? It just seems to me totally unreasonable,
and for elected officials this does not enhance their image."
Legislators, however, have shown little interest in scaling back what
one pension official called a "special quirk" in the system.
Vincent J. Piro, a former state representative from Somerville who lost
his seat after he was charged with taking a $5,000 bribe, used the law
to boost his pension from about $6,750 - not including annual
cost-of-living adjustments - to $18,872.
Richard Voke, a former House majority leader from Chelsea who retired in
1998 after losing a bitter fight for the speakership to Thomas M.
Finneran in 1996, upped his pension from about $14,779 to $28,193.
Francis G. Mara, a former state representative from Brockton who retired
in 1996 after he was fined for taking gifts from insurance lobbyists,
increased his pension from about $3,783 to $18,921.
"It's not doing anything wrong," said Mara, 58, who is now a State House
lobbyist for Arbella Insurance and Techlink Entertainment, a company
that makes technology for video lottery terminals, slot machines, and
other gambling systems. He said that when he was retiring, another
senator told him about the law and suggested he take advantage of it.
"That was a legal mechanism," he said.
Some may question the practice, he said, but "you can have these debates
over many things in society."
Indeed, efforts to repeal special pension benefits have been
traditionally met with fierce resistance on Beacon Hill, said state
Representative Harriett L. Stanley, a West Newbury Democrat and longtime
critic of such benefits.
"We're talking about the third rail here," she said. "It's going to be
absolutely impossible to make meaningful reform unless we acknowledge
the problem, and that will be one tough battle."
The law, as it was amended in 1950, allows any elected official under
age 55 "who has completed twenty or more years of creditable service and
who fails of nomination or reelection" to apply for a pension increase.
Using a formula based on the lawmaker's age, years of service, and
annuity, the law can boost a pension by as much 400 percent. Pension
officials say the requests are almost always granted unless the lawmaker
was convicted of a crime. No wonder, some say, that lawmakers created
the statute.
"If you're going to stick a little juicy one in there for yourself, why
not put one in there if you can't get reelected?" said Nicholas Poser, a
Boston pension lawyer. "The 'failed of nomination' stuff is, to my mind,
clearly directed at failed politicians."
Over the years, Democrats and Republicans have taken advantage of the
perk.
"They're going to say, 'Well, the statute provides me access to this
benefit, and why would I not take it?"' said Joseph E. Connarton,
executive director of the state Public Employee Retirement
Administration Commission.
Alfred E. Saggese Jr., a Winthrop Democrat, got his pension boosted to
$18,872, after retiring from the House in 1991, a year after he missed
more roll call votes than any other member, except for one who was in
poor health.
Piro - who was charged in 1984 with taking a $5,000 bribe, saying he had
to "grease a few guys," for a liquor license - was eventually acquitted,
and has received an increased pension since 1991.
Recent recipients include Christopher J. Hodgkins, a former Democratic
representative from Lee, who retired in 2003 and upped his pension from
about $4,889 to $22,253, and John Businger, a former Democratic
representative from Brookline who was ousted from office in 1998 and
increased his pension from about $15,083 to $23,301.
Marzilli's request, to bump his pension from $14,000 to $27,000, is
pending before the State Retirement Board, which says it will not rule
on the increase until his criminal case is resolved.
Faced with the prospect of deep budget cuts, some say the appetite for
change is growing on Beacon Hill.
The Legislature recently created a 15-member commission to look at ways
to overhaul the pension system.
It was supposed to meet in September, but its members have yet to be
appointed. Still, if the panel forms, and lawmakers look for changes,
some say the perk for departing legislators could be targeted.
"These kinds of things become symbols that reinforce people's cynicism,"
Harshbarger said.
The Boston Globe
Monday, January 12, 2008
State House swindlers
By Kevin Cullen, Globe Columnist
This is a truly marvelous, glorious state, where we can find millions
for useless, utterly useless "full-time legislators" and no money for
the most vulnerable kids among us.
If you read Michael Levenson's terrific story in yesterday's Globe, you
would have learned, as you choked on your cornflakes, that Senator Busy
Hands Marzilli is hardly alone when it comes to violating innocent
people.
Turns out more than a dozen of these clowns are putting the arm on
taxpayers, taking advantage of a legal form of larceny in which
legislators are allowed to quadruple their pensions if they get voted
out of office, or bail out because a grand jury is sniffing around.
Is this a great state, or what?
There was a photograph accompanying the story, showing a bunch of state
reps applauding the 2002 farewell speech to the House by Chris Hodgkins,
the representative from Lee, who was the envy of his colleagues because
of his New York-border per diems. All the reps were smiling and clapping
and laughing like hyenas.
And who can blame them? They are being paid full-time wages for
part-time work, and they give themselves raises and pension boosts and
no one says boo. They work for suckers.
Us.
Even by the ludicrously low standards of the Great and General Court of
Massachusetts, this scam is egregious. These are the same "career"
legislators who, when not working at their own law practices, won't let
poorly-paid state prosecutors perform a closing or any kind of outside
legal work. Our legislators have deemed that a potential conflict of
interest for prosecutors, who earn less than toll collectors. I'm sure
the stance on the outside work of prosecutors has nothing to do with the
fact that so many legislators work as defense lawyers and have a vested
interest in keeping prosecutors overworked and underpaid.
It was quite heartwarming to learn that Vinnie Piro, the former state
rep from Somerville who was acquitted despite taking five large from an
informant to grease a liquor license, was rewarded for behavior that
usually lands you in the can: He was able to triple his pension.
It would be nice if some of these frauds could meet Gary McManus in the
corridor of Lynn District Court this week and explain why they deserve
to be rewarded for political failure or personal malfeasance when he has
been told he can't help poor kids anymore.
There has been no attention paid to this, because it involves poor
people, but eight weeks ago, a group of lawyers who work as advocates
for troubled kids was informed that the state was cutting the service
and judges can't appoint them anymore.
McManus is part of a small group of lawyers who for the last decade
worked in the juvenile courts as guardian ad litem educational advocates
for kids from dysfunctional homes who get in trouble.
These lawyers were paid the princely sum of 50 bucks an hour, or about
half of what a plumber gets to show up at your door. The lawyers who do
this work are doing God's work, and they could earn more money doing any
other sort of legal work. They don't do it for the money. They do it
because sometimes they save kids from going to jail or having a lousy
life or killing themselves.
Cutting these court appointments will save the commonwealth about $4
million, which is less than the gang of 14 profiled in yesterday's Globe
will end up taking in retirement.
Gary McManus shakes his head when considering what we deem important in
this commonwealth.
"A very wise judge, Bonnie MacLeod, told me 17 years ago that if we can
get these kids into appropriate settings, maybe they won't cost us
$40,000 a year to house them at the prison in Concord," Gary McManus was
saying. "The trial court has to save money. We understand that. But this
is shortsighted. It will cost us more money in the long run."
What else is new?
The Boston Herald
Monday, January 12, 2008
A Boston Herald editorial
It’s a no-brainer
The law is the law, and like it or not state lawmakers are due for their
biennial pay increase. The Patrick administration has pegged the raise
at 5.5 percent - or $3,203 - taking the base salary for reps and
senators up to $61,440.
Ah, but there is not a single word in that pay raise law approved by
voters back in 1998 that says lawmakers are required to accept an
increase.
So we have four words for the 200 newly sworn members of the House and
Senate:
“Thanks, but no thanks!”
Some lawmakers, to their credit, have already made that statement.
Others say they plan to take the raise and donate it to charity (thus
getting a tax deduction and a bump in any future pension).
Others, including House Speaker Sal DiMasi, plan to accept the raise.
DiMasi argues, in part, that lawmakers will be in for a pay cut in the
2011-2012 session (cue the laugh track here).
Of course we have been down this road before. There was enormous
pressure on lawmakers to reject the pay raise during the last fiscal
crisis in 2003, since revenues were sluggish and state agencies were
undergoing deep cuts.
But that was also the era of high real estate values and easy access to
credit. The average taxpayer wasn’t experiencing nearly the same pain
they are today. And recovery seems a long way off.
So if there were ever a time when lawmakers should consider being frugal
with the taxpayers’ money, now is that time.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Withholding snafu pins bill on State
By Hillary Chabot
Taxpayers are on the hook for $1.6 million to pay for a two-decade-old
state Treasury goof that let Beacon Hill lawmakers avoid a 2.9 percent
Medicare deduction from their paychecks, according to documents obtained
by the Herald.
Comptrollers working under state Treasurer Tim Cahill noticed the
mistake, which allowed lawmakers to take home additional cash, in 2006.
The news comes shortly after Gov. Deval Patrick approved a 5.5-percent
legislative pay hike.
“It’s obviously bad timing, but I don’t think anyone was trying to game
the system,” said Sen. Richard Tisei (R-Wakfield). “Obviously a mistake
was made 20 years ago and no one knew about it.”
The treasurer’s office, which handled the paychecks of all 200
legislators and eight governor’s councilors, failed to withhold the cash
when a law changed forcing state employees hired after 1986 to pay
federal Medicare tax.
“The Treasury has enjoyed a good working relationship with the IRS in
dealing with this matter and we look forward to resolving it,” said
Cahill spokeswoman Francy Ronayne. She declined to comment further
because the terms are not final.
Officials caught the mistake when payroll duties for the 208 employees
moved from the treasurer’s office to the comptroller’s in 2006. Other
state employees have had their Medicare tax withheld since the change in
1986.
The state must pay $1.6 million for both its own and the 208 employees’
contributions from 2005 to 2008 as part of a deal worked out with the
IRS, according to the document.
The deal struck means taxpayers won’t have to pony up for the 18 years
of payments missed from 1986 to 2004.
Sen. Michael Morrissey (D-Quincy) said lawmakers shouldn’t be on the
hook for the missed payments because the treasurer’s office made the
mistake.
Most lawmakers elected before 1986 are exempt from the deductions, and
those elected after 1986 would have no way of realizing anything was
wrong because the state never withheld the money in the first place,
Morrissey said.
“It would be one thing if (the deduction) was there and disappeared, but
it just never showed up,” said Morrissey. “If the employer made the
mistake, then the employer should bear the burden of the loss. That
should be true in the public or private sector.”
Lawmakers and governor’s councilors began seeing the 2.9 percent
withheld in their first checks in 2009, according to the document. They
will also have to pay taxes on their portion of the $1.6 million because
the missed deductions count as wages.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Local pols who keep $1.6M tax ‘raise’ blasted
By Hillary Chabot
Days after lawmakers got a controversial 5.5 percent pay hike, a
governor’s councilor blasted them for keeping a “back pocket” raise
thanks to a decades-old state treasury slipup.
The state treasurer’s office failed to withhold 2.9 percent in Medicare
tax from lawmakers’ paychecks since 1986, officials recently discovered.
Taxpayers now have to cough up $1.6 million to rectify the goof.
“This is basically another raise they’ve been taking for the last 20
years,” said Governor’s Councilor Mary-Ellen Manning, who said she’d pay
back her portion of the mistake, or about $1,450.
“They’re all standing up and saying they’re not going to take it, but
here they’ve had this in their back pocket,” Manning said.
Rep. Vinny deMacedo (R-Plymouth), who is giving his raise to charity,
said he won’t pay back the Medicare withholdings because he was in the
dark about the mistake.
“I don’t want to take anything that’s not mine. Anything I rightfully
owe I’ll pay, but I had no idea what they state was doing,” deMacedo
said.
State officials caught the mistake when the payroll duties for the 208
lawmakers and governors’ councilors were shifted from the treasurer’s
office to the comptroller in 2006. Lawmakers were supposed to put 2.9
percent of their paycheck toward Medicare starting in 1986, but the
treasurer’s office hadn’t made the deductions.
Under a deal hammered out with the IRS, taxpayers will pay $1.6 million
for the missing deductions from 2005 to 2008. Manning said the missed
deductions amount to extra cash in lawmaker’s pockets in the end - and
taxpayers wind up footing the bill.
Most lawmakers elected before 1986 were grandfathered as exempt from the
withholdings, and those elected after that year didn’t know they were
supposed to contribute.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
A Boston Globe editorial
Pension sweeteners turn sour
'It's ridiculous," says L. Scott Harshbarger, the former attorney
general of Massachusetts and onetime president of Common Cause. "How in
the world is it appropriate, necessary, or consistent with any
reasonable public policy that if you chose not to run for office or are
defeated in running for office that you get an enhanced pension?"
Indeed, the Massachusetts law that allows legislators to increase their
pension if they lose an election - and to begin collecting on it on the
day they leave office - isn't just inappropriate. It's enraging. And it
should be repealed.
The law was created to compensate civil servants who lost jobs due to a
change in administration. The Legislature expanded it to provide the
same benefits to lawmakers.
A Globe review showed that 14 former legislators are currently drawing
significantly increased pensions under the law from as far back as 1989,
including several who left amid ethical and criminal troubles. Others
stand ready to cash in. J. James Marzilli Jr., charged with attempting
to grope a woman, also asked the state to nearly double his pension
after he quit the state Senate.
In the past, lawmakers showed little appetite for repealing this
provision. However, state Representative Jay Kaufman of Lexington,
chairman of a special House committee on pension reform that was created
last week by House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, is filing a bill to do
that, along with other changes.
Given the series of scandals that have rocked Beacon Hill and undercut
their collective credibility, lawmakers should seize the moment and get
behind Kaufman's proposal. It is time to stop capitalizing on the
ridiculous and repeal these special benefits.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|
